What would you need to get into day trading, properly, as a full time job? I'm certain that bank defaulter lists are filled with mediocre day traders, so without asking what's your secret, what's your secret?
Mick West is a buffoon, and his “debunking” videos intentionally mislead his audience. I say this because he has had this explained to him again and again but he still ignores evidence.
When you have infrared, multiple radar, and visual observations simultaneously of an object and pretend all you have is a grainy infrared video REPEATEDLY it goes beyond skepticism into deceit.
We have a grainy infrared video, and claims of other infrared, radar and visual observations. Claims are easy to make and hard to analyze. Video is all we can analyze, and the video is unconvincing. Why then should we believe the claims?
We have incredibly strong claims that lead to congressional hearings and classified reports to Congress. The public videos are heavily redacted and lower quality than the classified ones.
So is your claim that they’re all lying? Is Congress in on it?
No, my claim is that a few are lying and/or exaggerating the truth, and most others are unwilling or unable to point out the lies. Just like what happened with Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", which were a much more consequential lie, I hope you'd agree.
It's definitely an easier explanation than supernatural alien craft.
Nothing in this analysis or conclusion contradicts the radar observations - how are they being "ignored"? And it is unclear to me (as an uninitiated person) how "visual" observations lend any more credence to the story when they are just retellings of the exact same kind of footage, except impossible to further analyze/corroborate.
The core claim of this joke of a production is that it’s just lens flare.
They use weasel words to hedge their bets, but their intention is pretty clear.
The facts are that these pilots also saw these things with their own eyes and got radar locks in addition to IR. These are “targeting” pods remember? It can’t just be lens flare.
The "production" explicitly acknowledges that there is obviously a real, physical object with a strong IR signature. But all we see about the object is the lens flare. Hence, none of the apparent rotations and jerks are those of the object, but come from the movement of the camera system itself. Please feel free to re-watch.
I found Redshift to be far inferior to Snowflake as a data warehouse for marshalling any tables or views you need for ML work. There's lots of statistical functions available within Snowflake that will speed things up for you if you need pre-calculations on feature sets.
I'm working fully remote (for now), so I'm trying to figure out when the tech industry will be going back to the office in Dublin by reaching out to local recruiters. Most of them don't know yet for sure, but it's like to be some variation of 5 to 10 office days per month.
For me, the proverbial final straw came when I delivered a dinosaur utility company it's first churn propensity score. Bit of background, my manager and their manager were non-technical and I had this thing running in evaluation mode for a few months with excellent lift in the top couple of percentiles. I had the statistics well grounded, and this thing was due to go in against basically nothing, renewal teams randomly calling prospects.
Anyway, before this thing goes live, I see a few managers printing out pages of Excel sheets and arranging them on a conference table to validate the model with literally pencil and paper. They didn't know what a percentile was until I explained it.
I handed in my notice the Monday following that weekend. Sometimes, if you're not trusted to do a good job, it's not worth trying.
I don't understand what happened here and why you left. Were they checking your math? Were they seeing if the suggestions made by the model made sense to them? Why would either of those things be upsetting to you?
Taiwan vs. China would be all over in five minutes flat, and nobody in the West really cares what China does so long as the trade and financial arrangements are relatively unaffected.
I get that this is hyperbole, but it's really, really dangerous. A good number of people care very much. Whether there are enough people in the right places for the U.S. to get involved is an open question. But it doesn't actually take that many people to commit a country to war. Thinking that the other side is definitely bluffing and there's no chance at all they'll do anything is how disastrous Great Power wars that no one really wanted happen.
I think the experience of “Hongkong vs. China” will make strategists in the West wonder how well those arrangements will be held twenty-ish years later.
